How fast could a Voting Amendment be done?

[Man from La Mancha]

Is it possible within several months to enact an amendment to have paper ballot voting witnessed my local voters when counted? I see the 15th,19th and 26th dealt with voting issues. If so how can we do it? Any idea? Can Ron indroduce the bill? Please consider this. La Mancha

From Wikipedia

With this in his mind, President Lyndon Johnson had asked Congress to propose an amendment lowering the voting age to 18 in the summer of 1968. The amendment passed through Congress when it was reintroduced by Senator Jennings Randolph in 1971, and within months passed three-fourths of the state legislatures, quicker than any other amendment. The 26th Amendment was formally certified by President Richard Nixon on July 1, 1971.

A North Carolina congressman, Jim Beatty, worked with high school students by encouraging a petition drive in 1967-1968. Tens of thousands of petitions were collected through a collaboration of student bodies throughout the United States

Congress proposed the Twenty-sixth Amendment on March 23, 1971.[1] The following states ratified the amendment:

Connecticut (March 23, 1971)
Delaware (March 23, 1971)
Minnesota (March 23, 1971)
Tennessee (March 23, 1971)
Washington (March 23, 1971)
Hawaii (March 24, 1971)
Massachusetts (March 24, 1971)
Montana (March 29, 1971)
Arkansas (March 30, 1971)
Idaho (March 30, 1971)
Iowa (March 30, 1971)
Nebraska (April 2, 1971)
New Jersey (April 3, 1971)
Kansas (April 7, 1971)
Michigan (April 7, 1971)
Alaska (April 8, 1971)
Maryland (April 8, 1971)
Indiana (April 8, 1971)
Maine (April 9, 1971)
Vermont (April 16, 1971)
Louisiana (April 17, 1971)
California (April 19, 1971)
Colorado (April 27, 1971)
Pennsylvania (April 27, 1971)
Texas (April 27, 1971)
South Carolina (April 28, 1971)
West Virginia (April 28, 1971)
New Hampshire (May 13, 1971)
Arizona (May 14, 1971)
Rhode Island (May 27, 1971)
New York (June 2, 1971)
Oregon (June 4, 1971)
Missouri (June 14, 1971)
Wisconsin (June 22, 1971)
Illinois (June 29, 1971)
Alabama (June 30, 1971)
Ohio (June 30, 1971)
North Carolina (July 1, 1971)
Oklahoma (July 1, 1971)
Ratification was completed on July 1, 1971.
The Amendment Process


There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
from..http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process

.

[Man from La Mancha]

bump

Would like thoughts on this, if viable, must be started soon or is anybody doing this?

.

[Man from La Mancha]

bump, doesn't anyone care?

[mtmedlin]

IT takes years. Not only does it have to be approved by congress and voted on, then it has to be ratified by the states. I cant think of a single amendment that didnt take many years to pass.

[lynnf]

Is it possible within several months to enact an amendment to have paper ballot voting witnessed my local voters when counted? I see the 15th,19th and 26th dealt with voting issues. If so how can we do it? Any idea? Can Ron indroduce the bill? Please consider this. La Mancha

From Wikipedia

The Amendment Process


from..http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process

.

That was a good example that you found, the lowering of voting age to 18. As you can see, it was at least partially proposed by Johnson, a powerful president, and it would have had almost universal appeal.

A voting amendment now would almost certainly be opposed by this president and would also be opposed by moneyed interests. Another obstacle is that the Texas Legislature won't meet again until 2009 (meets every 2 years) although it might be able to be done without Texas, but are there other states that have legislatures that aren't in session?

very improbable if not impossible

lynn

[Man from La Mancha]

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

What do they mean by "state conventions" I was looking around google but can't find how to form them? Can the people force emergency meetings of the legislature?

.

[cjhowe]

That was a good example that you found, the lowering of voting age to 18. As you can see, it was at least partially proposed by Johnson, a powerful president, and it would have had almost universal appeal.

A voting amendment now would almost certainly be opposed by this president and would also be opposed by moneyed interests. Another obstacle is that the Texas Legislature won't meet again until 2009 (meets every 2 years) although it might be able to be done without Texas, but are there other states that have legislatures that aren't in session?

very improbable if not impossible

lynn

To clarify on Texas, The Governor can convene a special session of the Legislature. But our Governor is Rick Perry, so yeah 2009 unless you could find something else that would pique his interest. Unfortunately the only things that would pique his interest are disgusting ideas (speeding up the Trans Texas Corridor, gerrymandering or forced vaccinations)

[lynnf]

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

...

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

What do they mean by "state conventions" I was looking around google but can't find how to form them? Can the people force emergency meetings of the legislature?

.

Yes, I see your point that the president has no "formal role", but since presidents twist arms in Congress to get or stop certain legislation, they do have a powerful informal role. And presidents do have some influence in state legislatures through the party.

Emergency meetings of the legislature would vary state by state according to their constitutions.

lynn

[cjhowe]

In addition, I don't see too many states willing to cede the power to determine how their elections are conducted to the federal government. This opens up a lot more cans of worms than just the presidential election.

[Man from La Mancha]

In addition, I don't see too many states willing to cede the power to determine how their elections are conducted to the federal government. This opens up a lot more cans of worms than just the presidential election.
Couldn't an admendment just state that voting will be done with paper and witnessed by voters and not tell the states how or when to have elections?

But what are these techniques, and how are they done?
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)

[cjhowe]

What if a state wanted computerized voting and was willing to have it be open source or provide any other means for verification? This would undoubtedly be less expensive than hand counted paper. You're having the federal government place a financial burden on the states that is the fundamental basis of state's sovereignty and representation.

I personally would want my state representative to vote nay on ratifying such an ammendment but vote yay on a state law.

[Man from La Mancha]

No machines can ever be trusted, can the average voter witness open source code? How expensive is paper and a clear plastic box and volunteers to count them and send them to the state capital? There are only about 200 people per prescient, it is already set up and paid for.

.

[cjhowe]

No machines can ever be trusted, can the average voter witness open source code? How expensive is paper and a clear plastic box and volunteers to count them and send them to the state capital? There are only about 200 people per prescient, it is already set up and paid for.

.

Continuing ... what if a state wanted to allow its residents to vote via the Internet to encourage greater turnout. This is a state issue that is dangerous to yield to the federal government.

[Man from La Mancha]

Continuing ... what if a state wanted to allow its residents to vote via the Internet to encourage greater turnout. This is a state issue that is dangerous to yield to the federal government.
Why would any citizen want a computer controlling vote count? All the amendment would insist on is voting paper not when or how offen. '

'

[austin356]

Continuing ... what if a state wanted to allow its residents to vote via the Internet to encourage greater turnout. This is a state issue that is dangerous to yield to the federal government.



I am a states soveriegnty guy and I believe that such an amendment would actually strengthen the power of the states because it would set precedent and show an amendment is necessary to do such.

Right now the Congress believes it could make all ballots paper if it wanted too; If they have to pass an amendment saying all paper ballots then that is inherently saying they dont have the authority to overrule the states w/o an amendment.

So even though it does in and of itself reduce the power of the states, when looked at in context of the entire political system and by the setting of precedent, then such a reduction in power actually results in an increase in power overall.


Oh and why anyone would want internet voting blows my mind.

1)It would dramatically increase voter turnout. These people who would be voting are not politically inclined, and the vast majority of them want to 1}give up any right the government ask them to 2}increase any welfare benefit the politician proposes 3}create an even deeper mover towards a democracy from a Republic.

2)I would never trust the voting system, as nothing can be physically traced.